Comcast-NBC Deal: Does the Merger's Approval Rest on Health Care?

I’ll be the first to admit that anti-trust law is not my strong suit. The myriad implications of cable giant Comcast’s proposed acquisition of NBC are complexities beyond the grasp of most mortals. Legions of attorneys will put legions of children through college with the fees that this transaction will generate. This is the kind of stimulus that will inject much-needed capital into the private country club sector of the economy.

But beyond the regulatory and legal minutia that technically govern this proposed deal, one obscenely crass, downright offensive action by Comcast’s CEO warrants the application of withering scrutiny to the merger.

A day, one single day, after the two media giants announced their deal, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts proudly weighed in to strongly support the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill.

Now Comcast is a big company, with about 100,000 employees. I’m sure health care costs have a big impact on their bottom line. But the bottom line impact on Roberts’ personal net worth will be much greater if the federal government, with a big say-so from the US Senate, approves the $13 billion deal.

So Roberts’ heartfelt letter to the president in support of the Democrats’ singular policy issue was the first action he took in what is expected to be a twelve-month regulatory review process. This is an action with absolutely no relevance to the vast intricacies of the merger, but a move that sets a new standard for blatant pandering aimed at a group of people for whom pandering is the new coin of the realm.

Roberts, no stranger to the political world (Politics PA called him one of the “Power 50” in his home state of Pennsylvania, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians of both parties, knows that many Democrats in Congress are strongly opposed to further consolidation in the media sector. He is also, undoubtedly, aware that the Obama Administration has expressed its intent to fight large scale mergers that would concentrate power over television, cable and the internet in a few huge companies.

On the other side of the transaction, GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been among Obama’s biggest corporate cheerleaders. Immelt is particularly eager to see more government help in the credit realm to benefit GE Capital and to continue to vast government handouts for wind turbines in which GE is heavily invested. Immelt has already pledged his undying support for Obamacare. And now, his company stands to win a huge influx of cash if his new pals in Washington will approve this transaction.

The administration has made numerous pronouncements about their desire to limit consolidation, to demand internet transparency, to fight cross-ownership of media outlets and to “reinvigorate” anti-trust enforcement they claim the Bush White House ignored. Initial business media reports predicted a regulatory “gauntlet” stood in the way of the deal and that the process would be “a test of the Obama administration’s resolve to fight media consolidation.”

So if you are about to march into the lion’s den it makes perfect sense to toss a side of beef in beforehand. The White House has shown itself willing to sell out to any special interest willing to help them slather lipstick on the health “reform” pig. They cut deals with friend and foe alike, knowing that they need all the help they can get to contravene the will of the American public to take over one sixth of the nation’s economy.

So we now have a high-profile test case. But the test is not whether laws or regulations exist that stand in the way of the Comcast-NBC deal. What we are about to learn from the way the administration and Senate Democrats handle the investigation and scrutiny of this transaction, is just how much political pandering will buy you under Washington’s current power structure.

No one should bother chiming in with the endless examples of special interests lending political support to officials in exchange for favorable treatment. The point here is not that this is the first time someone has tried this. The point (that is seemingly being made on a daily basis) is that this administration promised, ad nauseum, that they would be different, unprecedented, if you will, in their level of integrity, transparency and overall sanctimony, and so far, they have come up short rather consistently.

Will the sycophancy of Roberts and Immelt usher in smooth sailing for this deal? Will the Democrats level the scathing attacks we would expect were they still in the minority? Will they stand up for their (misguided, anti-free market, pro-government control) principles or will they sell out cheap, like they have on cap and trade, health care, Afghanistan and other issues when the special interests come calling with an offer of friendship? Stay tuned to one of Comcast’s five hundred channels to see.